• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Greater cricketer: Wasim Akram or Jacques Kallis

Wasim Akram vs Jacques Kallis

  • Total voters
    46
B

Bolo.

International Captain
subshakerz said:
We don't need to imagine since he played on those pitches in that period. Maybe your argument is that with more time and facing weaker attacks, his average would rise, I agree, but 60 is a stretch.
Click to expand...
Sachin was always regarded as the best bat from mid/late 90s till career end, except by a minority who preferred Lara or ponting when he was peaking. Ponting was recognised as the form bat for x years in the 2000s. Seeing as you don't hold a consistent standard on how long qualifies (or hold any?), there will be many, many bats who qualify as best form bats. Just about every decent bat goes through a beast phase of wildly differing lengths.

You have been given a lot of reasons why the idea is poor. Opinions can be wrong. There is never as much concensus as you claim. You can be denied a spot by playing at the same time as a quality bat or peaking at the wrong time, whereas a worse bat will make the grade by a quirk of timing. Time lengths are too short and inconsistent. Etc.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
Sachin was always regarded as the best bat from mid/late 90s till career end, except by a minority who preferred Lara or ponting when he was peaking. Ponting was recognised as the form bat for x years in the 2000s. Seeing as you don't hold a consistent standard on how long qualifies (or hold any?), there will be many, many bats who qualify as best form bats. Just about every decent bat goes through a beast phase of wildly differing lengths.

You have been given a lot of reasons why the idea is poor. Opinions can be wrong. There is never as much concensus as you claim. You can be denied a spot by playing at the same time as a quality bat or peaking at the wrong time, whereas a worse bat will make the grade by a quirk of timing. Time lengths are too short and inconsistent. Etc.
Click to expand...
My friend, it appears you still don't understand and you are overcomplicating things.

Being generally recognized as best in the world at some point in your career is a prerequisite for being an ATG. It doesn't mean everyone who achieves that automatically becomes an ATG. So you do have guys like Gooch and Clarke who were best bats at one point but didn't do enough outside of that phase to justify being an ATG.

There doesn't have to be an absolute consensus or a particular length but with almost all ATGs I know of, it is generally a period of 2 to 4 years at the top where they are ahead of the pack.

Again, feel free to find be an example of a bonafide, top tier ATG who didn't achieve that.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
subshakerz said:
My friend, it appears you still don't understand and you are overcomplicating things.

Being generally recognized as best in the world at some point in your career is a prerequisite for being an ATG. It doesn't mean everyone who achieves that automatically becomes an ATG. So you do have guys like Gooch and Clarke who were best bats at one point but didn't do enough outside of that phase to justify being an ATG.

There doesn't have to be an absolute consensus or a particular length but with almost all ATGs I know of, it is generally a period of 2 to 4 years at the top where they are ahead of the pack.

Again, feel free to find be an example of a bonafide, top tier ATG who didn't achieve that.
Click to expand...
Again, I understand, just disagree.

You have been given an example in Headley already. You Just chose to write it off as an exception. Hammond is another one from Bradman's era. Plus anyone else who peaked in those 20 years. Giving modern examples is going to be circular. They are not ATGs in what your view of a concensus is, which will shift according to how much you like the player and if you want them included. But, for an easy example for you, Imran as a bowler. Always typically rated below a WI/Aus/NZ bowler, even when outperforming them.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
Again, I understand, just disagree.

You have been given an example in Headley already. You Just chose to write it off as an exception. Hammond is another one from Bradman's era. Plus anyone else who peaked in those 20 years. Giving modern examples is going to be circular. They are not ATGs in what your view of a concensus is, which will shift according to how much you like the player and if you want them included. But, for an easy example for you, Imran as a bowler. Always typically rated below a WI/Aus/NZ bowler, even when outperforming them.
Click to expand...
When it comes to Bradman, he is so far ahead of the pack that it would make it exceptional though.

Imran was seen as the best bowler in the world in the early 80s, especially 82 when he was Wisden Cricketer of the Year and then his destruction of India in 83, before Marshall rose, but you could argue his ascendancy was cut short by his injury. And I concede you will have moments when ATGs have jostled and switched for the top position too.

Again, you are overcomplicating things. ATGs will have their periods being recognized as the best, that is it.

Let us agree Kallis may have comparable raw numbers with other top bats in phases in his career, but he never quite got recognized as the best batsman in the world.
 
Last edited:
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
Coronis said:
Next you’ll tell me Chris Martin would average 15 if he was Indian.
Click to expand...
Only if he picked up spin bowling, or so I believe the lore goes.

Edit: Actually, only the multiverse version of Chris Martin who specialized in batting exclusively got to average 15. It's a sad universe though, as we only get to see him in a single Test before he was dropped unanimously for lack of quality. :(
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
Prince EWS said:
You actually listed Chris Martin (spin) at #11, below even the two pace-bowling Martins. That implies he'd average like, 1.
Click to expand...
Chris Martin (spin India) actually ended up averaging 6, but was kept out of the side by Kumble and Harbhajan. Another sad universe...

Chris Martin (spin) was a New Zealander who was actually the most famous of the 3 Chris Martins in his universe. He constantly got smoke blown up his ass for being way better than that other spinning dude Vettori, and often lauded as the greatest Kiwi spinner of all time. Defensive coaches did drop him on occassion, as they coulnd't understand the purpose of an attacking spinner (much sad).
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
I don’t care where he played, the idea of McGrath averaging anywhere near 20 is laughable.

Next you’ll tell me Chris Martin would average 15 if he was Indian.
Click to expand...
Yeah these things tends to standardize over the course of a career. McGrath would likely end up in the 21/22 range.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
shortpitched713 said:
The original question of the poll is kind of dumb. I refuse to answer it.
Click to expand...
Just about can figure out the comparisons between specialists bats and balls. Just look through my lists, take into account the relative number of talents in each skillset, and compare.

But when you throw in players with secondary skillsets, like Kallis and Wasim do have, it becomes a crapshoot.

I will say, I'll pick Sanga over Kallis and Pollock over Wasim for mine though.
 
Cricket Bliss

Cricket Bliss

School Boy/Girl Captain
trundler said:
Kallis's bowling is a non factor once you take minnows out. It's roughly as good as Wasim with bat. Meh. Wasim with ball is better than Kallis for sure. So Wasim.
Click to expand...
Kallis bowled excellently in England and upto an extent West Indies, and their batsmen are far from being minnows
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top